Under the "Pure Ray Tracing" rule system that some have advocated, the attached
image, entitled 'First Cup of the Morning', would not constitute a "legal"
entry.  Each of the two panels was created
from scratch using POV-Ray.  All objects were created using only CSG.  The final
image would be disallowed, however, because the two panels were stuck
together with "post processing" software (Irfanview). Now, I certainly wouldn't
expect to receive any technical merit points for the simple act of sticking two
images together, but it seems silly to me that this would be enough to get the
image tossed out altogether.

Allow me to suggest something like this:
(There is most certainly room for improving upon the wording.)

===============================================================
Because this is the "Internet RAY TRACING Contest", judges are encouraged to
award points in all categories with a very strong emphasis on how well the
unique potentials of ray tracing as a method for producing images are used.
Non-ray tracing aspects of image production which are used well and logically
shall be considered neutrally, while producing an effect in such a manner that
could have been done better through ray tracing will be considered just grounds
for reducing a score substantially.
===============================================================

This does leave quite a bit up to the individual judge, but I don't see this as
a problem inasmuch as making judgments is, by definition, what judges are here
to do.  I would suggest that the goal of exploring the full potential of ray
tracing can be better pursued if we include the possibilities of how the method
can be used in conjunction with other tools rather than limiting ourselves to
that which can achieved by using our beloved process under conditions of extreme
isolation.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '1st_cup.jpg' (320 KB)

Preview of image '1st_cup.jpg'

Several images like that have been allowed in the past. The intent of the 
rule was to prevent alteration of the image, e.g. for effects that weren't 
available in your 3D program. Though personally I have no problem with 2D 
effects as long as they are rendered and not hand-painted (though of course 
that distinction could be quite hard to define).

I can't find the IRTC rules page now but wasn't there something about 
"source should be available on request", which I believe was intended for 
ensuring the rules could be enforced. Though for non-povray users even that 
could be hard to pin down.

Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to 
alter the appearance of the rendered scene."

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a3ba5b69bb9b5fc85627c70@news.povray.org...
> Under the "Pure Ray Tracing" rule system that some have advocated, the 
> attached
> image, entitled 'First Cup of the Morning', would not constitute a "legal"
> entry.  Each of the two panels was created
> from scratch using POV-Ray.  All objects were created using only CSG.  The 
> final
> image would be disallowed, however, because the two panels were stuck
> together with "post processing" software (Irfanview). Now, I certainly 
> wouldn't
> expect to receive any technical merit points for the simple act of 
> sticking two
> images together, but it seems silly to me that this would be enough to get 
> the
> image tossed out altogether.
>
> Allow me to suggest something like this:
> (There is most certainly room for improving upon the wording.)
>
> ===============================================================
> Because this is the "Internet RAY TRACING Contest", judges are encouraged 
> to
> award points in all categories with a very strong emphasis on how well the
> unique potentials of ray tracing as a method for producing images are 
> used.
> Non-ray tracing aspects of image production which are used well and 
> logically
> shall be considered neutrally, while producing an effect in such a manner 
> that
> could have been done better through ray tracing will be considered just 
> grounds
> for reducing a score substantially.
> ===============================================================
>
> This does leave quite a bit up to the individual judge, but I don't see 
> this as
> a problem inasmuch as making judgments is, by definition, what judges are 
> here
> to do.  I would suggest that the goal of exploring the full potential of 
> ray
> tracing can be better pursued if we include the possibilities of how the 
> method
> can be used in conjunction with other tools rather than limiting ourselves 
> to
> that which can achieved by using our beloved process under conditions of 
> extreme
> isolation.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Under the "Pure Ray Tracing" rule system that some have advocated, the attached
> image, entitled 'First Cup of the Morning', would not constitute a "legal"
> entry.  Each of the two panels was created
> from scratch using POV-Ray.  All objects were created using only CSG.  The final
> image would be disallowed, however, because the two panels were stuck
> together with "post processing" software (Irfanview).

I don't know what constitutes "pure" ray tracing.

However, your two images can be easily joined in POV-Ray by rendering two
adjacent boxes, each using one of your source images as an image map.

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to 
> alter the appearance of the rendered scene."

  That would forbid all post-processing. Gamma correction alters the
appearance of the rendered scene. Even resizing can be used to alter the
appearance.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Tek wrote:
> > Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to
> > alter the appearance of the rendered scene."
>
>   That would forbid all post-processing. Gamma correction alters the
> appearance of the rendered scene. Even resizing can be used to alter the
> appearance.

.... converting to JPG *will* alter the appearence, invariably...

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Under the "Pure Ray Tracing" rule system that some have advocated, the attached
> > image, entitled 'First Cup of the Morning', would not constitute a "legal"
> > entry.  Each of the two panels was created
> > from scratch using POV-Ray.  All objects were created using only CSG.  The final
> > image would be disallowed, however, because the two panels were stuck
> > together with "post processing" software (Irfanview).
>
> I don't know what constitutes "pure" ray tracing.
>
> However, your two images can be easily joined in POV-Ray by rendering two
> adjacent boxes, each using one of your source images as an image map.

Yes, I *COULD*, but it would be silly.
Insisting that entries place heavy emphasis on ray tracing makes sense.
Demanding that simple things be done in Rube Goldberg-like fashion just so
that one can say "Zero post processing was involved" does not.
In the fairly unlikely event that the absolute purist position should become
the governing principle of the IRTC, I'm certain that all five or six people
who are really interested in making images that way will have just a lovely
time praising the purity of one another's entries.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Yeah you're right, I phrased that really badly :)

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.4a3c39498f017c6b65778f220@news.povray.org...
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Tek wrote:
>> > Perhaps something generic like: "Images should not be 'photoshopped' to
>> > alter the appearance of the rendered scene."
>>
>>   That would forbid all post-processing. Gamma correction alters the
>> appearance of the rendered scene. Even resizing can be used to alter the
>> appearance.
>
> .... converting to JPG *will* alter the appearence, invariably...
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> In the fairly unlikely event that the absolute purist position should become
> the governing principle of the IRTC, I'm certain that all five or six people
> who are really interested in making images that way will have just a lovely
> time praising the purity of one another's entries.

Eww!  That's why I stopped watching EWTN (Catholic TV).  The theologians just
sit around the coffee table agreeing with each other all day.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Yeah you're right, I phrased that really badly :)

I don't know about others, but the point *I* am trying to make is not that you
phrased it badly - but that it's virtually *impossible* to phrase properly.

I see many people here trying to conjure up a waterproof and airtight precise
ruling, which I think doesn't exist at all - while any attempt to come up with
a common-sense based approach is countered with some nitpicking.


Well, if that's where the IRTC is going to go, then I'll not stop it. But I
won't go for wars about petty rule details where I think common sense paired
with some mutual tolerance should do the job. *Perfect* justice is nowhere to
be had anyway.

If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
TC-RTC.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> If the number of rules-related newsgroup postings are indicative of the
> atmosphere to be expected at the IRTC, with rules being *that* much important
> to the participants, then I guess I'll very much prefer to have some fun at the
> TC-RTC.

  So you are going to boycott the IRTC because of some weird principles?

Post a reply to this message